Gun ownership itself is a slight mental illness

Yes, I am implying that their thought processes are that basic. They get a gun and decide they are going to go kill someone.

 

You are probably correct but still attacking something because it's easier than solving the real problem seems counter productive. Kind of like a doctor thinking why heal you when it's easier and more profitable to just mask the symptoms.

 

I don't see the problem as being that complicated. Some people just can't be around guns without using them to kill people. I doubt there is any other solution than just making sure certain people don't get guns. But how can you ever tell who can't be trusted with one? We should definitely ban assault weapons. They're not going to do any good against a tyrannical government anyway. They may be fun for you to use, and I'm not saying you couldn't use one to hunt or whatever, but that's beside the point. They fall into the wrong hands.

I just don't think it's parenting or bad medicine or video games or anything like that. I think, literally, some people get a gun and, for whatever reason, just decide to kill people with it. No matter what we do, so long as certain people have access to guns, this will be their choice. The best we can do is ban assault weapons and try to pay more attention to who the weirdos are, who we don't really think should be owning a gun.

 

The point is, you can make as many laws as you want but if the (now very Conservative) Supreme Court decides the laws are unconstitutional you have just wasted your time.

Sorry, In your posts #508 and #516 when you posted these:
"Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1][2] Some firearms are specified by name.[3]"
and
"Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.[1][2] Some firearms are specified by name.[3] At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."[3] The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups, the media and the firearms industry.[1][4][5][6][7] It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic or burst mode.[5]",
some how I thought you were posting a definition. I don't know what I was thinking.

[/QUOTE]You write a law that includes or excludes various weapons by defining the technological aspects of what the law specifies an assault weapon to be and by compiling a list of those weapons.[/QUOTE]As I just pointed out above; "you can make as many laws as you want but if the (now very Conservative) Supreme Court decides the laws are unconstitutional you have just wasted your time."

 

Seems you don't understand explosives either.
If someone wants something that explodes they don't need to go buy something that is "regulated" they can just go to their local store, buy a few things that aren't regulated and just "mix it up right here in the sink".

 

Wouldn't they get bits of stuff in the sink, though?

 

My mind cannot accept that anyone, no matter how deranged, would have that thought process.

To me it's clearly got to be the reverse.

But feel free to show me one guy who admits to doing that if you feel like pressing your point.

 

Most certainly.

 

The thing is in this picture it doesn't "look like an assault weapon" but yet does have the "traits of an assault weapon" that you posted in your "not my definition" of an "assault weapon". It is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip and so it will also be banned by any law that uses your "not my definition" of an "assault weapon" to ban guns.

 

so... no one listening, but I think that when the statistics in to the CDC and the Dickey Amendment is repealed, we can expect the gun control lobby to rise up and change the tune.

All the NRA wants, our members here included, is to keep guns around because without there is no NRA.

I think that it's really important to remember during discussions like this that lives have been lost. Gun lobbyists are all too ready to sweep that under the carpet. There are faces and names... human bodies that were taken; lives destroyed.

That's not something that I take lightly.

I don't like this entitled attitude about the second amendment. Clearly, something isn't working when it comes to firearms ownership. There is a problem! stop ignoring it. I swear it's like a kid who keeps pressing snooze on the alarm when it's time to go to school. Telling his mom for the umpteenth time "5 more minutes mom".



Also, gun owners have been socialized into this shell; like a turtle. When the shit hits the fan, the walls go up; it's shields-up! Well, I've seen it enough to recognize it - it becomes a tactical approach on the forums. Deflection after disingenuous deflection the frustration of the gun control lobbyist begins to shift from loss of life (which is our genuine issue) to something less genuine. We begin to feel we are being trivial. Are we truly just only browbeating someone over their tactics? Is it about deflections? No. It isn't. It's about people dying do to lax gun laws. It's about the lack of a waiting period, or the ability of people with a criminal record to purchase a firearm. It's about the second amendment and its in-applicability to a society in which mass murder has become a routine issue.

I won't argue about it anymore. I find it abhorrent. I don't have to explain myself. I will simply make it illegal for you to continue in the way that you do.

One thing I would appreciate is if we could make it understood that the ar15 is no longer socially acceptable. Not at the fucking dinner table or anywhere else. Tell your friends and family about it. Make sure people understand there is something wrong with that. That mentality is at issue!

 

Yes/no... I'll give you a like for good post.

It really is upbringing. That's a super-wide range of things which parents provide and do for and with their kids. Look into it.

I mean, besides things like DNA deficiencies or whatever.

 

At that point I don't think they're really going to care.

 

and when we talk about the everso ambiguous term "assault weapon", I think there's a list from a Californian congresswoman, I forget who right now; I think Diane Feinstein. I would suggest that we argue about what should or shouldn't be on the list. Otherwise, it's a little too ambiguous I would say.

I don't want to talk, but I will say this: I have no problem if your family hunts or there is some kind of tradition about eating deer or pheasant or whatever else. I think that's kinda cool. But that can hold hands with this type of legislation. You don't have to sacrifice everything. I mean, you can probably hunt pheasant with a slingshot. It might even be fun, though I think it's probably a little cruel.

 

Listening?

Sorry. It's the same old tired rhetoric you've bought into that's been around for decades.

Didn't make sense ever, and never will. It's a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry to inform you that you've been hoaxed. Murders won't be reduced until we address the underlying cause. And it ain't the availability of assault or assault-style rifles. Isn't the murder weapon most chosen the pistol?

 

here is the link for Diane Assault Weapons Ban summary - United States Senator for California

 

That's because you're opposed to seeing guns as being a big part of the problem. Some people see a gun, they see other people, and they put two and two together. It's no more complex than that. I don't think guns are bad, but I know that there are loopy people out there who should never come in contact with one.

I'm sure nearly every case is a case of some guy who bought a gun, or had access to guns, and then fantasized about killing people until they decided to make that fantasy a reality. The gun gives you a certain amount of power over human life. You can fantasize about killing dozens of people, have minimal experience with a firearm, and the fantasy will seem like it can become real. It's easy: You just aim and pull a little trigger with your finger.

What is "the reverse?"

Literally all we can do is ban assault weapons and pay more attention to people we know have access to guns. I don't see why banning assault weapons is such a big deal. No one really needs them.

 

I get what you're saying. I won't cry my eyes out if those things phase out. Won't miss em at all. But part of my remaining freedom will be taken a chunk from. It's a fine line.

 

this is the lie.

I don't want to buy into that. Because isn't that the real hoax? You don't know/can't prove that someone doesn't think about murder differently/half-as-much when there is no gun!

SO... have you ever heard someone say "so, don't think of a cat". or "Don't think of an elephant". It's like the first thing you think of. Well, what about when you own a gun? And somebody pisses you off, say on the road as an example. The first fucking thing you do is think of shooting that person!

I don't want to be in this limitless pissing contest. I think you have a problem with honesty! I don't think that it's productive to follow your flawed reasoning. It's not functional to suggest that there is no good to be done by taking the gun away. It's blatantly false. You can dissolve most of the issue, if not all, by simply taking the gun away.

It's that easy.